The

present

petitioner

was

accused

in

C.C.No.478/2009, in the Court of the learned II Addl.Civil

Judge and J.M.F.C., Shivamogga, (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as the “trial Court”). By its judgment dated

11.03.2013, the trial Court convicted the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to

as `N.I.Act’) and was sentenced accordingly.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the

trial Court was that the complainant and the accused are

known to each other and there was a transaction between

them in respect of the land bearing Survey No.19 of

Gajanoor Village. An agreement was arrived at between

them in connection with the said property. Accordingly,

accused owed a sum of `2,45,000/- to the complainant,

towards the payment of which, the accused issued a

3

cheque

for

the

said

sum

of

`2,45,000/-

bearing

No.980879, drawn Karnataka Bank Ltd., Gajanoor Branch,

Shivamogga,

dated

28.02.2009

in

favour

of

the

complainant. When the said cheque was presented for its

realisation by the complainant, the same came to be

returned unpaid with the Banker's endorsement `funds

insufficient'. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal

notice to the accused demanding the payment of the

cheque amount, for which, the accused has issued an

untenable reply, but, did not pay the cheque amount and

the same constrained the complainant to institute a

criminal case against the accused in the trial Court for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, charges were

framed against the accused for the alleged offences.

4. The complainant in order to prove his case, got

himself examined as PW-1 and three witnesses as PW-2,

PW-3 and PW-4 and got marked eighteen documents from

4

Exs.P-1 to P-18. On behalf of the accused, the accused got

himself examined as DW-1 and another witness as DW-2

and got marked six documents from Exs.D-1 to D-6.

5. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its

impugned judgment dated 11.03.2013, convicted the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

N.I.Act and sentenced him accordingly.

6. Challenging the said order, the accused has

preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.82/2013, before

the

learned

Presiding

Officer,

Fast

Track

Court,

Shivamogga, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

`Sessions Judge's Court), which by its judgment dated

20.01.2014, dismissed the appeal by confirming the

judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. It is

against these judgments of conviction, the accused has

preferred this revision petition.

7. The respondent is being represented by his

learned counsel.

5

8. Records from the trial Court and Sessions

Judge’s Court pertaining to the matter were called for and

the same are placed before the Court.

9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel from both

side. Perused the materials placed before this Court,

including the trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court

records.

10. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be

henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial

Court.

11. After hearing the learned counsel from both side,

the only point that arises for my consideration is,-

“Whether the impugned judgments

suffer

from

perversity,

illegality,

impropriety warranting any interference at

the hands of this Court”.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his brief

arguments mainly canvassed on two points. The first point

of his argument was that, since the Indemnity Bond at

6

Ex.D-1 was executed on 25.11.2008, then the question of

entering into an agreement on the same day does not

arise.

His second point of argument was that the Indemnity

Bond at Ex.D-1 when mentions that the blank cheques

were returned to the accused, the complainant should

have returned the cheque in question and he should not

have retained the cheque in question. He further

submitted that, one among the blank cheque was misused

by th